The Strange Bedfellows of Dr. Stephen Steinlight

Dr. Stephen Steinlight and his Mexican Bashing

Dr. Stephen Steinlight - Center for Immigration Studies - anti-immigration activist

Dr. Stephen Steinlight

Dr. Stephen Steinlight is a “senior policy analyst” at the Center for Immigration Studies, an anti-any-immigration advocacy group masquerading as a “think tank.” Steinlight regularly addresses conservative Republican and tea party groups, offering his “conservative” perspective, and often trashes Hispanics, particularly Mexicans. This recent speech to the Spirit of Freedom Republican Women’s PAC in Sugarland Texas caused quite a controversy.

 

Fortunately, not long after Steinlight’s speech the Texas Federation of Republican Women, parent organization of Spirit of Freedom Republican Women’s PAC, rejected Stephen Steinlight’s bigotry and instead embraced immigration reform.

Stephen Steinlight Strange Bedfellow – John Tanton

John Tanton FAIR NumbersUSA CIS Center for Immigration Studies Eugenics US English ProEnglish

John Tanton

America’s leading anti-immigrant organizations, the Center for Immigration Studies, the Federation for Immigration Reform (FAIR), NumbersUSA, and both official English groups were all founded or co-founded by Dr. John Tanton, a proponent of the long discredited pseudoscience of eugenics, and long time activist in population control, immigration reduction,  and environmental groups.

Most holocaust scholars recognize the American eugenics movement as the ideological foundation for Hitler’s “final solution”, the mass murder of the Jews and others the Nazis deemed inferior, though American eugenics never moved past racial immigration quotas, forced sterilization, and anti-miscegenation laws. Apparently though ‘holocaust scholar’ Stephen Steinlight has no problem working for an organization founded and led by eugenics and population control enthusiasts!

Tanton donated his papers to the University of Michigan Bentley Library, and these papers prove Tanton is an eugenics enthusiast. One of Tanton’s many projects was the Society for the Advancement of Genetics Education, which Tanton described in a letter to Robert Graham, a fellow eugenicist who founded the Repository for Germinal Choice, intended to be a sperm bank for Nobel Laureates. Tanton also wrote a paper titled “The Case for Passive Eugenics” which shows he is an enthusiastic supporter of eugenics, though eugenics lost all credibility after the Nazis and WWII.

John Tanton’s resume shows a long track record as a population control liberal, holding leadership positions with Planned Parenthood, Zero Population Growth, and environmental and conservation groups such as the Sierra Club. Tanton is infamous for trying to hijack the Board of Directors of the Sierra Club to transform the Sierra Club into an anti-immigrant organization. After failing to hijack liberal organizations, now Tanton tries to hijack conservative groups.

John Tanton, like Stephen Steinlight, demonstrated his low regard of Hispanics in the infamous WITAN memos, which were leaked to the Arizona Republic (still available on-line WITAN I, WITAN II, WITAN III).

Stephen Steinlight Strange Bedfellows – Center for Immigration Studies, FAIR, NumbersUSA

Linda Chavez

Linda Chavez

Prominent conservative Linda Chavez was the executive director of U.S. English until Tanton’s WITAN memos were leaked to the Arizona Republic, and Linda Chavez, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and others fled Tanton founded groups at light speed. Linda Chavez called the WITAN memos “repugnant” and has been warning conservatives and others about the Tanton network for years now. She recently wrote “Strange Bedfellows for Conservatives“, backing claims by Mario Lopez that the leadership of Tanton founded organizations are population control and eugenics enthusiasts:

Mario H. Lopez - Hispanic Leadership Fund

Mario H. Lopez

What Lopez shows in his article, “Hijacking Immigration,” should be disturbing to conservatives. He demonstrates that what motivates these groups primarily is their obsession with controlling population. In essence, they want to restrict immigration in order to keep population size down in the U.S., eventually decreasing it to between 150,000,000 and 200,000,000.

The organizers of these groups and some of their current backers are pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia and assisted suicide, and have spoken approvingly of China’s one child policy (even though some of them think it is too liberal). In their view, there are simply too many people in the U.S. (and the world) and they’d like fewer of them — a lot fewer. They hit on restricting immigration as the first line of attack in their war on population, but there is no indication they want to stop there.

But what should be most troubling to anti-abortion conservatives is the close association between FAIR and the pro-abortion movement. Lopez notes that several members of FAIR’s staff, board, advisors and donors are closely tied to abortion rights. FAIR, CIS, and NumbersUSA were creations of one man, John Tanton, and his umbrella organization, U.S. Inc., which raised funds for and directed the work of these groups in their initial stages. “Three of the five directors of U.S. Inc. — chairman John Tanton, vice-chair Mary Lou Tanton and director David Irish — are openly committed to population control through abortion, family planning and curtailing immigration,” writes Lopez.

But they are not alone. Lopez shows interconnections between the anti-immigration leaders and the National Abortion Rights Action League, Planned Parenthood, Pathfinder International, a provider of abortions and sterilizations worldwide, and the International Projects Assistance Service, which is the manufacturer of the Manual Vacuum Aspiration Kit (MVA), a mobile abortion device used in the developing world. And there are past and present connection between those involved in these anti-immigration groups and the eugenics movement. Long-time FAIR board member Garrett Hardin was also a member of the American Eugenics Society, and FAIR has received more than a million dollars in grants from the eugenicist organization The Pioneer Fund.

Stephen Steinlight talks to conservative groups and holds himself out as a conservative. Isn’t it strange that the organization he works for was founded by and led by liberals who strongly support abortion, even forced abortion and sterilization?

Stephen Steinlight Strange Bedfellows – The Pioneer Fund

The Center for Immigration Studies tries to distance itself from its founder and from FAIR, but in fact CIS began as a project of FAIR in 1985, while John Tanton was chairman of FAIR, and while FAIR continued to received millions of dollars in funding from  The Pioneer Fund. Any doubts about the true nature of The Pioneer Fund are soon clarified from its original charter:

A. To provide or aid in providing for the education of children of parents deemed to have such qualities and traits of character as to make such parents of unusual value as citizens, and, in the case of children of such parents whose means are inadequate therefor, to provide financial aid for the support, training, and start in life of such children.

The children selected for such aid shall be children of parents who are citizens of the United States, and in selecting such children, unless the directors deem it inadvisable, consideration shall be especially given to children who are deemed to be descended predominantly from white persons who settled in the original thirteen states prior to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States and/or from related stocks, or to classes of children the majority of whom are deemed to be so descended.

Over decades, the Pioneer Fund has concentrated not on helping children but on funding research into racial differences, and supporting anti-immigrant legislation such as California’s proposition 187. The word “white” in the charter was removed in 1985, but Pioneer has continued funding research to prove whites are superior to blacks and Hispanics. According to “The Bell Curve Debate”, the authors of “The Bell Curve” drew from dozens of research studies into racial differences funded by The Pioneer Fund.

Harry Laughlin President Pioneer Fund, Deputy Director Eugenics Research Office anti-Semite anti-immigrant eugenics activist

Harry H. Laughlin

Wickliffe Draper - Pioneer Fund - repatriation of blacks to Africa

Wickliffe Draper

The Pioneer Fund’s founding president, Harry Laughlin, is infamous as one of America’s leading racial eugenicists and anti-Semite, often credited for passing the 1924 National Origins Act, which restricted immigration to Europeans, with strict quotas correlating to American’s demographic makeup from 1890, essentially slamming shut the door to immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, nations which had large concentrations of Jews fleeing pogroms.

In 1937 the Pioneer Fund was founded by Wickliffe Draper, whose New England textile fortune started the fund’s endowment and helps finance it today. Harry Laughlin, the first president of the fund, was a well-known eugenicist who in 1924 was instrumental in pushing through legislation blocking U.S. entry to Jews fleeing pogroms in Russia, and Draper is infamous for seeking to repatriate blacks to Africa.

Both Laughlin and Draper were staunchly pro-Nazi. From the book “The Bell Curve Debate” chapter “Inside the Pioneer Fund”:

In Congress, Laughlin testified that IQ data proved that 83 percent of Jewish immigrants were born feeble-minded and therefore were a threat to the nation’s economy and genetic makeup. Laughlin subsequently lobbied to keep these barriers in place, successfully cutting off sanctuary for Jews seeking refuge from the Third Reich. Laughlin is widely credited with passing the 1924 immigration law implementing the racist national origins quotas.

In 1934, Harry Laughlin lobbied the New York State Chamber of Commerce Committee on immigration against admitting Jewish refugees. According to the New York Times, the Committee accepted Laughlin’s recommendations:

No exceptional admission for Jews who are refugees from persecution in Germany. No admission for any immigrant “unless he has a definite country to which he may be deported, if occasion demands.” No immigrant to be admitted whose ancestors were not “all members of the white or Caucasian race.” The United States to deny entry into its territory to “any would-be immigrant who adheres to the principle that loyalty to any foreign nation or to any alien race or organization transcends obligation to the government of the United States.

William H. Tucker, a Professor of Psychology at Rutgers University, reviewed Laughlin’s papers and summarized:

Laughlin’s correspondence also indicates that he would have liked to apply to “the Jewish problem” the solution intended for blacks, but realized that it was impractical. “The deportation of four million Jews,” he wrote, “would be many times more difficult than the repatriation of three times as many Negroes.” Thus resigned to the fact that “[t]he Jew is doubtless here to stay,” Laughlin maintained that “the Nordics’ job [was] to prevent more of them from coming.” In keeping with this goal, in 1939 when Jews were attempting to escape from the Third Reich, Laughlin recommended not only a reduction in immigrant quotas but procedures to denaturalize and deport some immigrants who had obtained citizenship, singling out Jews as a group “slow to assimilate.”

Stephen Steinlight Strange Bedfellow – Adolf Hitler

Adolf Hitler - Nazism and Darwinism

Adolf Hitler

Not surprisingly, Adolf Hitler, was a huge admirer of America’s eugenics movement, using a model sterilization law drafted by Harry Laughlin and adopted as law by 30 states as the basis for a German eugenics sterilization law, leading to the sterilization of two million Germans. Laughlin was enthusiastic about German eugenics policy, and was himself was rewarded with an honorary doctorate by Nazi controlled Heidelberg University. In Adolf Hitler’s unpublished sequel to Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote:

It is not by chance that the American union is the state in which by far the greatest number of bold, sometimes unbelievably so, inventions are currently taking place. Compared to old Europe, which has lost an infinite amount of its best blood through war and emigration, the American nation appears as a young, racially select people. Just as the achievements of a thousand degenerate Levanters in Europe—say, on Crete—cannot equate with the achievements of a thousand racially much superior Germans or Englishmen, the achievements of a thousand racially questionable Europeans cannot equate with the capabilities of a thousand racially first-rate Americans. Only a deliberately ethnic racial policy could save the European nations from losing the power of the initiative to America as a result of the lower quality of the European peoples in comparison to the Americans. But when instead the German people allows—in addition to a Jewish-instigated systematic bastardization with lower-quality human material, and a resulting decline in the racial level itself—the best bloodlines to be removed through the ongoing emigration of hundreds of thousands of individual specimens, it will gradually deteriorate into a low-quality and therefore incapable and worthless people. The danger is particularly great ever since—with complete indifference on our part—the American union itself, motivated by the theories of its own racial researchers, established specific criteria for immigration. By making an immigrant’s ability to set foot on American soil dependent on specific racial requirements on the one hand as well as a certain level of physical health of the individual himself, the bleeding of Europe of its best people has become regulated in a manner that is almost bound by law.

The 1939 Wagner-Rogers refugee aid bill would allowed 20,000 Jewish children to immigrate to the U.S., above and beyond the existing quota, but was vehemently opposed by Laughlin, and failed to pass Congress. Even the S.S. St. Louis, a ship of Jewish refugees fleeing Europe, was barred from the U.S. by the FDR administration. The door to Jewish refugees to immigrate to the U.S. would remain largely shut until 1944, when FDR finally relented and gave in to pressure from the Jewish community, alarmed about reports of mass murder by Nazis in Europe.

The 1965 Immigration Reforms repealed the National Origins Act with it’s blatantly discriminatory quotas, and for the first time since Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 naturalization by non-whites was allowed. The previous immigration policies, so admired by Hitler, effectively barred most Jewish refugees from the U.S., and anyone who could not become a naturalized citizen could not immigrate to the U.S.

Not surprisingly The Pioneer Fund vehemently opposed the repeal of per nation quotas in 1965. John B. Trevor, Jr., an officer of The Pioneer Fund and a close friend of John Tanton until his death, testified repeal of the discriminatory quotas would produce “a conglomeration of racial and ethnic” and “lead to a serious cultural decline.” Trevor and Tanton were so close that he left his papers, as well as those of his father John B. Trevor, Sr., to Tanton, who donated them to the University of Michigan Bentley Library along with his own papers.

Nativists have been whining about the 1965 immigration reforms ever since! Oddly enough holocaust scholar Stephen Steinlight thought the 1965 immigration reform, which repealed racist quotas, was a terrible idea! From Steinlight’s controversial speech:

One third of all people who live in this country have been here since the change in immigration law in 1965. This whole tsunami has come out of a ruinous decision to change immigration policy in 1965. That bill, the people who wrote it, had no idea it was going to increase immigration, it wasn’t meant to. It has spawned unending, negative unforeseen consequences ever since and it’s wreaking havoc up to this very day.

In opposing repeal of the national origins quota system, Steinlight in effect supports previous policy that largely barred Jews and non-whites from the U.S.

Of course we know Steinlight isn’t a white supremacist because he told us so!

I’ve been called a white supremacist.  By the way, I’m a Jew, so I didn’t know I was white until about 30 years ago.  A white supremacist – I don’t think the KKK would take me, well really, they’re short of members now so maybe.

Steinlight’s attempt at humor was not funny at all, as the anti-immigrant movement is a proven magnet for white supremacists. Most people who oppose immigration reform do so for policy reasons and not from racist attitudes, but Steinlight certainly makes sweeping negative generalizations about Hispanics that are lacking in credible facts, and then he hides behind his minority status as a Jew so he can say things about Hispanics and resist the inevitable charges of racism.

Whether Steinlight is a white supremacist is debatable, but I can’t help but agree with Latino Rebels’ claim that at a minimum Steinlight is a tool of racists, and he certainly is clueless about Hispanics, assimilation, and Hispanic politics.

####

Bob Quasius is the founder and president of Cafe Con Leche Republicans.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Discuss: “The Strange Bedfellows of Dr. Stephen Steinlight”

  1. February 13, 2013 at 11:19 am #

    AND – all of the above – just goes to show – that Hispanics SHOULD be rather skeptical about Conservatives and their take on everything dealing with Hispanic issues. There is good reason why 70% of the Hispanic vote went to Obama !!!

    Just sayin’,

    Robert Allen

    Posted by boba123
  2. May 9, 2013 at 3:56 am #

    You have a lot of gall whining about Tanton and trying to link Steinlight to him and Hitler, when your primary cultural group pushing for your illegal immigration / amnesty scam is “LA RAZA” which in English means “The Race”.

    Second of all, any republican who pushes for amnesty is a nothing but a rino at best. EVERYONE knows that 90% of those gaining amnesty (and we are seeing more and more every day that virtuallY ALL ILLEGALS including felons will get amnesty) are DEMMIGRANTS.

    Posted by les Legato
    • May 9, 2013 at 12:33 pm #

      Steinlight chose to work for an organization that started with funding from the Pioneer Fund, as a project of FAIR, founded by eugenics activist and provable bigot John Tanton.

      The term “la raza” in Spanish means “the people” which just goes to further prove your ignorance.

      As for formerly unauthorized immigrants’ party affiliation, that will depend on successful GOP engagement. Presidents Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush as well as Canada’s Conservative Party all proved immigrant votes can be won, while the shrill rhetoric of recent years prove immigrants can be alienated.

      Posted by bquasius
      • May 9, 2013 at 3:24 pm #

        My first comment in this thread is still good and expresses my over-all orientation.

        By the by, Bob Quasius, the Google translation system – http://translate.google.com/#es/en/la%20raza – translate “la raza” as “race”.

        Robert Allen

        Posted by boba123
        • May 9, 2013 at 6:06 pm #

          Robert in that sense it would mean “the human race” as opposed to “la raza latina” which would mean “the latino race”, etc. Words don’t always translate exactly, but critics are quick to note that “race” in English and “raza” in Spanish rhyme, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they have the same meaning.

          Posted by bquasius
          • May 10, 2013 at 1:43 am #

            Unlike you, Bob Quasius, I am NOT a Spanish speaker or reader, thus I tend to go to sources, like Google Translator, to provide rough translations for me – OR – I depend upon trusted translators that I’ve run into over time – such as Walter Kaufmann when I want to read works by Friedrich Nietzsche, for instance.

            On the other hand, I’m familiar with enough reads about Nazi Germany – to know that in Nazi parlance – only Germans where considered Human – with everyone else seen as sub-Human. Racists always define key words and phrases – such as Human, Person, Societal Member, Life not worth living, etc. with Rascist overtones and undertones.

            American Nativists – such as the Revivalist from the turn of the 19th to 20th Century, like Billy Sunday – also have the Racist-style overtones and undertones – such as – “Sixty-nine per cent of our criminals,” said Sunday, “are either foreign-born or of foreign parents.” “America has become the backyard in which Europe is dumping its paupers and criminals.”

            William McLoughlin’s “Modern Revivalism: Charles Grandison Finney to Billy Graham”, p 443 – goes on to say – “Sunday accepted unquestioningly the biased propaganda of the Immigration Restriction League and the Dillingham Immigration Committee’s report. He passed on to his audiances the belief that there was a stereotype of the 100% pure American which could not only be defined scientifically and statistically but could also be discerned just by looking at a man: “You walk in the streets of New York or Philadelphia or Chicago and not one out of every three faces will have the strains of pure Americanism.”

            So there, Bob Quasius, is my take on the conversation that you present by starting this thread – on the ongoing conversation that is going on in the Comments section of this thread.

            Just my take on things,

            Robert Allen
            PS – My computer would not allow me to use my regular boba123 login, thus I had to log-in the comment with my regular email address.

            Posted by Robert Allen
      • May 13, 2013 at 3:29 am #

        La Raza stands for “the people”? No, that’s a dumb lie. It means “the race”. Spanish has any number of words for people (pueblo, gente or communidad). “Raza” means race. Check the Real Academia Española.if you don’t believe me.

        Still don’t believe me? The foremost component of the Open Borders lobby is an organization known as the NCLR. That stands for the National Council of La Raza. The power of this organization should not be in doubt.

        For example, Cecilia Muñoz is a former vice president of this organization and is now the director of Amnesty for the Obama administration. She was also a principal architect of the failed 1986 Amnesty and worked assiduously (and successfully) to stop all of the enforcement provisions of the 1986 Amnesty as soon the Amnesty took effect.

        The name of the NCLR should raise eyebrows. La Raza is “The Race” in English. However, the truth is worse, much worse. The slogan of the NCLR is the motto “Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada” (“For the Race, everything, outside the Race, nothing”). A reasonable person might think that racism that explicit did not exist in America today. They would be wrong. Does anyone who favors Open Borders have a problem with such obvious racism? Obviously not.

        However, the real truth is deeper and darker. La Raza is actually a contraction of “La Raza Cosmica” (“The Cosmic Race”). La Raza Cosmica is the ideology of race devised by José Vasconcelos back in the 1920s. It is a doctrine of racial superiority and inferiority. José Vasconcelos was a rather serious racist. For example, he founded the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) whose slogan was (and remains), “Por mi raza hablará el espíritu” (“For my race the spirit shall speak”). José Vasconcelos never disavowed his racist ideology until the end of his life. In the 1930s and 40s, he was a Nazi agent in Mexico. After the defeat of Nazi Germany he recanted some of his extremist views.

        This obviously raises some very disturbing questions. Why is the Open Borders lobby collaborating with an organization whose very name is derived from a Nazi agent? Why has the Open Borders lobby never denounced the extremist racism of one of its foremost partners in promoting Amnesty? Does every advocate of Open Borders subscribe to La Raza ideology? Doctrines of racial superiority?

        Troubling questions that need answers.

        Posted by Frank Youell
        • May 13, 2013 at 5:18 am #

          We have nothing to do with National Council of La Raza. They are on the opposite side of the political spectrum. They are quick to criticize Republicans, but you’ll hardly ever hear NCLR criticize Obama for record levels of deportations, false detention of U.S. Citizens, or citizenship stripping of Latino citizens birthed by midwives. IMHO they are liberals first, immigration advocates second.

          You are WRONG about the term “la raza”, which does mean the people or the human race. Add the word “hispano” or “latino” to “la raza” and then we have the “Hispanic people” or “Latino people.”

          Just because a Spanish word rhymes with an English word doesn’t mean they directly translate.

          Posted by bquasius
          • May 15, 2013 at 10:20 pm #

            Bob Quasius – it looks like you and Frank Youell are quibbling over the translation of the phrase – “la raza”. Both you and Frank present your individual orientations to this phrase – and you, Frank, and I all refer to Nazi Germany as a hot-bed of Rascism.

            Frank presents a number of details, Bob, that you don’t address at all. I believe, Bob, that the discussion that you and Frank have about – National Council of La Raza is not resolved at all because each of you speak about different issues – about the same organization – but neither of you address the positions that the other brings up.

            I am NOT a Spanish reader or speaker, and it appears, Bob, that both you and Frank at least read Spanish – yet both of you disagree over an English translation of the phrase – “la raza” – which leaves me totally in the dust, so to speak.

            Personally, Bob, I disagree with your orientation that Eugenics is a Liberal cause and orientation. I see Eugenics as a rather Conservation orientation – and certainly an orientation that lacks any firm foundation in Science – particlarly, since Mitochondrial Eve comes to our awareness – from Africa!!!

            Overall, it appears that a great number of issues within this thread are “wishy-squishy” – at best.

            Just sayin’,

            Robert Allen

            Posted by boba123
      • May 13, 2013 at 3:32 am #

        Dumb and dumber. Bush got 39-40% of the Hispanic vote. That’s called losing by a landslide.

        Posted by Frank Youell
        • May 13, 2013 at 5:05 am #

          GOP vote among Latinos was 21% in 1996, so Bush doubled the Latino vote with constructive engagement and offering up sensible solutions to fix immigration.

          Canada’s Conservative Party used to lose minority demographics by 4-1 margins, and was the minority party for 14 years. After dropping harsh immigration rhetoric, and much more engagement with immigrant dominant demographics, the Conservative party now splits these demographics 50/50% and is again the majority party in Canada.

          Reagan took the stance that Hispanics are Republicans, they just don’t know it yet, and likewise showed significant improvement among this demographic.

          The Whigs are another party that alienated immigrant voters. Before Lincoln Whigs made no effort to win over immigrant voters, and made things worse with open alliances with the notorious “know nothings.” A certain former Whig named Abraham Lincoln – you’ve heard of this dude right? – partnered with a prominent German immigrant leader to engage with German voters. Lincoln even bought a German language newspaper to help with this outreach. Lincoln won both times in no small part due to the German immigrant vote, which had been voting consistently Democrat against the Whigs.

          Stupid is letting your opposition define you, and that’s precisely what the GOP has been doing with shrill rhetoric from a small minority of Republicans, silence on the part of most, and extremely weak engagement with immigrant demographics like Hispanics and Asians in recent years. Liberals have been quick to capitalize and smear the GOP as anti-immigrant and anti-Hispanic, and the GOP has been doing a poor job of dispelling that notion, at least until recently.

          Romney’s Hispanic vote was barely above the all-time low of 21% in 1996. Shall we try for 10-15% in 2014 and elect another hard left liberal like Hillary?

          Posted by bquasius

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Birthright Citizenship Myths and $2 Billion Emergency Medicaid - February 13, 2013

    [...] fertility rates among immigrant women, particularly Hispanic women, and birthright citizenship. I’ve also written recently about the ties between these groups and the eugenics movement and it’s dark past, including ties with Hitler’s Third [...]

  2. Debunking the Birthright Citizenship Magnet Theory - Cafe Con Leche GOP - June 8, 2013

    [...] fertility rates among immigrant women, particularly Hispanic women, and birthright citizenship. I’ve also written recently about the ties between these groups and the eugenics movement and it’s dark past, including ties with Hitler’s Third [...]

  3. Debunking the Birthright Citizenship Magnet Myth | Bob Quasius - November 2, 2013

    […] fertility rates among immigrant women, particularly Hispanic women, and birthright citizenship. I’ve also written recently about the ties between these groups and the eugenics movement and it’s dark past, including ties with Hitler’s Third […]

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: